National Survey
As part of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's (OJJDP's) Evaluation of Teen Courts Project, The Urban Institute recently conducted a national survey of teen courts and youth courts. With assistance from the National Youth Court Center (NYCC), which is housed at the American Probation and Parole Association and supported by funds from OJJDP, project researchers obtained addresses, telephone numbers, and personal contacts for all U.S. teen courts believed to exist as of the end of 1998, and they mailed questionnaires to nearly 500 programs. A handful of these programs had gone out of business by the time researchers tried to contact them. Of the remaining programs, 335 (more than 70 percent) completed and returned the survey. The responses documented the range of teen court programs used by jurisdictions across the country, the characteristics of their clients, the sanctions they imposed, the courtroom models they used, the extent of community support they received, and the challenges they faced.Program Characteristics
Recent growth in the number of teen court programs nationwide was reflected in the brief tenure of the programs responding to the national survey. Of all the programs that responded, 13 percent had been in operation less than 1 year and 42 percent had been in operation for only 1 to 3 years. More than two-thirds (67 percent) of all teen courts had been in existence for less than 5 years (see figure 2).
Many teen courts that responded to the survey were closely affiliated with the traditional justice system (see figure 3). Courts, law enforcement agencies, juvenile probation offices, or prosecutors' offices operated slightly more than half (52 percent) of the programs responding to the survey. More than one-third (37 percent) of the programs were affiliated with the courts and 12 percent with law enforcement. Private agencies operated one-quarter (25 percent) of the teen court programs.
Most teen court and youth court programs were relatively small (see figure 4). More than half (59 percent) of the programs responding to the survey handled 100 or fewer cases annually. Just 13 percent of the programs handled more than 300 cases per year.
Very few programs relied on private funding to meet their operational costs (see figure 5). More than half (59 percent) of the teen courts received no private funding; 16 percent of the programs received up to one-fifth of their funding from private sources, and 11 percent received between one-fifth and one-half from private sources.
Client Characteristics
Teen courts usually handle relatively young offenders with no prior arrests. Survey respondents reported that, on average, 24 percent of their cases involved youth under age 14 and 66 percent involved youth under age 16. More than one-third (39 percent) of the teen courts accepted only first-time offenders and another 48 percent reported that they "rarely" accepted youth with prior arrest records. Nearly all programs (98 percent) reported that they "never" or "rarely" accepted youth with prior felony arrests. Most programs (91 percent) also indicated that they "never" or "rarely" accepted youth who previously had been referred to a juvenile court.
To assess the nature of those cases typically handled in teen court, the survey asked each program to review a list of offenses and to indicate whether the program received such cases "very often," "often," "rarely," or "never." The offenses most likely to be received "often" or "very often" were theft (93 percent), minor assault (66 percent), disorderly conduct (62 percent), possession or use of alcohol (60 percent), and vandalism (59 percent) (see figure 6).
Sanctions
The principal goal of teen court is to hold young offenders accountable for their behavior. In a system of graduated sanctions, there is a consequence for every offense. Every youth who has admitted guilt or who is found guilty in teen court receives some form of sanction. In many communities, teen court sanctions do more than punish the offender. Sanctions encourage young offenders to repair at least part of the damage they have caused to the community or to specific victims. Offenders are often ordered to pay restitution or perform community service. Some teen courts require offenders to write formal apologies to their victims; others require offenders to serve on a subsequent teen court jury. Many courts use other innovative dispositions, such as requiring offenders to attend classes designed to improve their decisionmaking skills, enhance their awareness of victims, and deter them from future theft.
Survey respondents were asked to assess a list of typical sanctions and indicate how frequently the program used each one (i.e., "very often," "often," "rarely," or "never"). Community service was the most commonly used sanction (see figure 7). Nearly all (99 percent) of responding teen courts reported using community service "often" or "very often." Other frequently used sanctions included victim apology letters (86 percent), written essays (79 percent), teen court jury duty (74 percent), drug/alcohol classes (60 percent), and restitution (34 percent).
Courtroom Models
NYCC divides the courtroom approaches used by teen courts into four types (described in table 1): adult judge, youth judge, peer jury, and youth tribunal (National Youth Court Center, 2000). Findings from the national survey suggested that the adult judge model was the most popular. Nearly half (47 percent) of the responding courts used only the adult judge model. When the number of cases handled by adult judges in programs using a mix of courtroom models was added, the adult judge model accounted for more than half (60 percent) of all teen court cases.
The next most prevalent courtroom model was the peer jury, which accounted for 22 percent of all teen court cases. More than one in four (26 percent) teen court programs used this model for at least part of their caseloads. The youth judge and tribunal models were the least used, with each accounting for just 7 percent of all cases.
The use of courtroom models varied somewhat according to the agency sponsoring the program (see table 2). The adult judge model was the most popular among teen courts operated by local courts and probation agencies (58 percent) and those hosted by schools, private agencies, and other not-for-profit organizations (48 percent). There was no dominant model, however, among programs operated by law enforcement agencies or prosecutors. In fact, more than one-third (34 percent) of those programs used mixed models (i.e., a combination of two or more courtroom models).
Youth judge programs were also the smallest programs in terms of their annual caseloads. Only 14 percent of programs using the youth judge model reported more than 100 cases per year, compared with 40 percent of programs using the adult judge model and 38 percent of programs using peer juries.
Programs using the peer jury model were the least likely to depend on private funding. Nearly four-fifths (78 percent) of peer jury programs received no private funding and only 13 percent received more than one-third of their funding from private sources. For most other courtroom models, nearly half of the programs responding to the survey reported receiving some private funding (i.e., 45 percent of adult judge programs, 47 percent of youth judge programs, and 48 percent of youth tribunal programs).
Programs using the youth judge and youth tribunal models were more likely to allow juveniles to plead innocence or guilt and to hold trials. About one-third (35 percent) of programs using the youth judge model and 44 percent of those using the youth tribunal model held trials.
About 80 percent of teen court programs responding to the survey had a paid, full-time or part-time program director. Programs using the peer jury model were least likely to have paid program directors (58 percent). Likewise, these programs were least likely to operate during the summer months (53 percent).
Teen Court Facts
|
Of the four major program models, youth tribunal programs were the most likely to accept referrals for youth with prior arrest records. Only 28 percent of programs using the youth tribunal model reported that they would "never" accept youth with prior arrests, compared with at least 40 percent for all other program models. Just 39 percent of tribunal programs indicated that they would "never" accept youth with prior juvenile court referrals, compared with 50 percent or more among the other types of teen court models.
Community Support
The success of an individual teen court may depend on how well it is supported by various segments of the community. Teen court advocates have observed that it is essential for teen courts to be accepted by the larger justice system in their local area (National Youth Court Center, 2000). To examine teen court program directors' perceptions of community support for their programs, the survey asked each program to consider several prominent community groups and indicate whether each was "very supportive," "moderately supportive," "mildly supportive," or "not at all supportive" (see figure 8).
Judges were seen as the greatest supporters of teen court programs. More than 9 in 10 teen courts rated their local judges as "very supportive" (71 percent) or "moderately supportive" (21 percent). Other groups considered "very supportive" or "moderately supportive" of teen courts included law enforcement (87 percent), court intake and probation workers (86 percent), teachers and other school officials (86 percent), and prosecutors (84 percent). In general, teen courts perceived all of the named groups to be supportive. Even the groups ranking lowest on the list (elected officials and the business community) were considered by a majority of teen courts as either very or moderately supportive (78 and 67 percent, respectively).
Problems
As small, community-based programs, teen courts face a range of challenges and obstacles. To identify the type of problems facing teen courts, the survey asked each program to review a list of typical operational problems that might cause difficulties for teen courts. Each court was asked to indicate whether it had experienced the issue as a "serious" problem, a "minor" problem, something in between, or not a problem at all (see figure 9).
Not surprisingly, the operational problem reported most often by teen courts was funding (see figure 9). Forty percent of the programs reported "some problems" (25 percent) or "serious problems" (15 percent) with funding uncertainties. Only 38 percent of the programs reported that funding uncertainties caused no problems.
Other problems that presented significant challenges for teen courts included retaining youth volunteers (i.e., attorneys, judges, and jurors) and maintaining an adequate flow of referrals. More than one-fifth (21 percent) of the programs reported having "some" problems or "serious" problems keeping teen volunteers. Nearly one-third (29 percent) reported having "some" or "serious" problems with maintaining sufficient case referrals.
Several other issues were described as presenting "some" or "serious" problems for teen courts. These issues included cases in which too much time elapsed between a youth's arrest and his or her referral to teen court (19 percent), difficulties in coordinating the efforts of teen courts with other agencies in the community (16 percent), and problems recruiting youth volunteers (19 percent) and adult volunteers (20 percent).
Differences by program characteristics. The extent to which teen courts reported having problems in meeting specific challenges varied according to other program characteristics. Some differences were statistically significant. For example, teen courts operated by schools or private agencies were significantly more likely to report problems with funding uncertainties (see table 4). Among programs operated by private agencies and schools, 79 percent reported at least some problems with funding, compared with 44 percent of programs operated by courts and 49 percent operated by law enforcement or prosecutors. Teen courts operated by schools or private agencies were also significantly more likely than programs run by courts, law enforcement, or prosecutors to report problems with a lack of judicial support (38 percent) and difficulties coordinating with other agencies (63 percent).
Smaller programs were somewhat more likely than larger programs to report problems with a lack of judicial support and with a lack of clear program goals. More than one-quarter (28 percent) of teen courts that handled fewer than 50 cases per year reported having problems with goal clarity, compared with 15 percent of programs that handled more than 100 cases each year.
The length of time that teen courts had been in operation was also associated with problems regarding the clarity of their goals. Programs less than 2 years old were significantly more likely than programs in operation for 5 or more years to report having problems with goal clarity and with issues surrounding legal liability.
Finally, programs that relied heavily on private funds (often those operated by private agencies) were significantly more likely than those that did not rely heavily on such funds to report a lack of judicial support, coordination difficulties, a lack of adult volunteers, and problems with retaining youth volunteers. Programs that depended on private funding were also significantly more likely to report problems with heavy caseloads. Among programs that received more than one-third of their funding from private sources, 35 percent reported problems stemming from too many referrals, compared with 16 percent of programs that received no private funding.
